Subject: Ethical Issues in International Relations and funding

The statement represents the “2nd great debate” in International Relations between Realism and Liberalism/Idealism.

The “Will to Power”- The Realist Foundation

Human Nature- humans (and by extension, states) have an innate animus dominandi-a lust for power. (Hans Morgenthau.)

Anarchy- In an international system with no global government, states must seek power to ensure their survival.

Zero-Sum Game- if one state gains power, another feels less secure, leading to the “Security Dilemma.” Eg- Pakistan’s nuclear tests after India

Hegemonic Ambition- Eg- China’s “Global Civilization Initiative”

Territorial Expansionism- Eg- Russia’s ongoing annexation of Ukrainian territories

Nuclear Proliferation for deterrence and prestige. Eg- North Korea and Iran

Technological Supremacy- Eg- U.S.-China “Chip War” (2025)

Resource Weaponization- Eg- OPEC+ production cuts in late 2024

Taming through “Rationality”- The Neoliberal Approach

Rationality suggests that cooperation provides better long-term outcomes than conflict.

Interdependence- Trade creates “mutual destruction” risks that make peace more logical. Eg- U.S.-China trade

International Institutions- bodies like the UN, WTO, and IMF provide a framework for negotiation.

Regime Theory- It is easier to follow a shared rule than to fight for dominance every time a dispute arises.

Standardization of Global Tech- Eg- The Global AI Safety Summit (2025)

Collective Security- Eg- Sweden and Finland’s 2024-25 integration into NATO

Guiding by “Principles of Moral Duty”- The Constructivist and Liberal View

IR is not just about cold logic, but about Norms, Ethics, and Identity.

Democratic Peace Theory- “moral duty” toward democratic values prevents democracies from going to war with one another.

Human Rights- “will to power” (state sovereignty) is tamed by the moral duty to prevent mass atrocities. Eg- Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine

Constructivism- Thinkers like Alexander Wendt argue that “anarchy is what states make of it.” If states adopt a “Kantian” philosophy, the will to power is replaced by a will to cooperate.

The “Nuclear Taboo”- Eg- The G20 2024 New Delhi Declaration reiterating that “the use or threat of nuclear weapons is inadmissible.”

Human Rights Advocacy- Eg- ICC arrest warrants (2024-25) for leaders accused of war crimes

Challenges

The Return of Geopolitics- Eg- Russia-Ukraine conflict and tensions in the South China Sea

Rise of protectionism and territorial nationalism.

Erosion of Multilateralism. Eg- crisis of credibility of UN

Asymmetric warfare. Eg- state sponsored terrorism.

The statement is an appeal for Enlightened Realism through the “rational” design of institutions and a shared “moral” commitment to human dignity

Violation of principle of non-refoulement creates a “Liberal Paradox,” where the values used to define the state are discarded at its borders.

Refugee Rights

Right to Asylum (Article 14 of the UDHR).

Right to Life and Liberty

Right to Non-Discrimination

Freedom from Torture

Right to Due Process

Family unity

Access to basic services

Ethical Dimensions Violated by Refoulement

Violation of Kantian Categorical imperative- treats refugees as mere “means” to a political end border security.

Violation of Justice as Fairness (John Rawls) by sending refugees to face persecution or human right violation

Breach of Universal values like liberty, right to life. Eg- Alyan Kurdi death

Erosion of Human Dignity and an active denial of their Intrinsic Worth. Eg- Detention camps for asylum seekers.

Loss of moral leadership and global solidarity– Undermines credibility in human rights advocacy

Erosion of rule of law – Ignoring international refugee conventions. Eg- Violations of 1951 Refugee Convention.

Failure of the “Good Samaritan” Principle i.e. preventing great harm (death) with comparatively small cost.

Failure of humanitarian duty – Moral obligation to protect the vulnerable is ignored.

Discrimination – Selective hospitality based on race, religion, or politics. Eg- Preferential treatment of Ukrainian refugees over African refugees in Europe.

Epistemic Injustice- Refusing to believe or listen to the testimony of a persecuted person before deportation.

Many refugee crises (Syria, Afghanistan, Myanmar) are linked to historical colonial or military interventions by democratic powers. Refoulement is a rejection of Restorative Justice.

The “Slippery Slope” of Rights- Eg- devaluing the rights of its own marginalized citizens in future

Failure of Communitarian Ethics as nations are seen as part of a global “International Society” with mutual duties.

Causes long-term psychological and ethical decay in the host nation’s own moral fabric.

Way Forward

Individualized Screening- Eg-l “Credible Fear” interview.

Judicial Oversight to ensure Procedural Justice.

Principle of Proportionality. in Enforcement

Burden Sharing. Eg- EU Migration Pact

Enforcing “Responsibility to Protect” by UN

The ultimate best practice for a democratic society is to apply the Rawlsian “Veil of Ignorance” to every policy.

“War does not determine who is right – only who is left.” – Bertrand Russell

The Russia-Ukraine conflict serves as a grim case study for the tension between Realpolitik (national interest) and Global Ethics.

Stance by Different Countries

Impact of War on Different Aspects of Society

Human Tragedy- Russian casualties approaching 1.4 million in 2025

Displacement Crisis- Over 14 million Ukrainians

Global Food Insecurity

Energy Volatility- “energy poverty” for low-income households.

Environmental “Ecocide”- Eg- destruction of the Kakhovka Dam

“War Trauma” for an entire generation of children

Erosion of “Rules-Based Order” (violation of the UN Charter)

Ethical issues to be considered while launching and continuing war

Adherence to principles of Just War Theory – Jus ad Bellum (the right to go to war) and Jus in Bello (right conduct within war).

Impact on Human Rights

Mass Casualties

War inflation disproportionately impacting poor

Refugee crisis

Violation of principle Proportionality. Eg- mass bombing of cities like Kiev

Utilitarian principle of ‘greatest happiness’ violated due to prolonged war.

Principle of Last resort not followed as Russian invasion was preemptive.

Responsibility to future generations violated. Eg- damage to infrastructure and ecology.

Truth and transparency principles not followed. Eg- online propaganda and misinformation.

Global injustice – Eg- Wheat shortages in Africa due to Black Sea blockade.

Moral restraint in weapon use not followed. Eg- cluster bomb and vaccum bomb used by Russia.

Reports of torture and summary executions of Prisoners of War violate the Geneva Conventions

Failure in ensuring accountability for war crimes

The war is a reflection of “rationality” becoming servant to “Will to Power.” A just resolution requires Jus post Bellum framework (Justice after War)

“The proper aim of giving is to render the giver unnecessary.” – John Pulman

In contemporary IR, the ethics of aid are often caught between Cosmopolitanism and Realpolitik.

Ethical principles of international aid

The Humanitarian Imperative- Eg- aid to Turkey and Syria after the 2023 earthquakes.

Global Solidarity and Cosmopolitanism. Eg- India’s vaccine maitri initiative

Distributive Justice- Eg- Norway’s commitment to spending 1% of its GNI on aid.

Capacity Building to realise Right to development. Eg- India’s development assistance to Afghanistan (Salma dam, parliament building)

Aid channeled through global bodies to ensure neutral distribution. Eg-World Food Programme.

Global Public Goods- Eg- COVAX initiative for global vaccine equity during COVID-19.

Peacebuilding – Eg- Post-conflict reconstruction in Afghanistan.

Climate justice – Eg- Loss and damage fund for small island states.

Gender justice – Targeting women’s empowerment. Eg- Solar Mama’s of Africa

Ethical Issues in Contemporary International Aid

The Trap of “Tied Aid” (Economic Paternalism)- Eg- IMF structural adjustments conditionalities

Strategic Charity (Realpolitik)- Aid is used as a bribe for UN votes or military access. Eg- US aid to Pakistan.

The “Debt Trap” Diplomacy leading to a loss of sovereignty. Eg- Hambantota Port in Sri Lanka

The “White Savior” Complex- Designing solutions in Western boardrooms without local consultation.

Corruption- Eg- Diversion of humanitarian aid by militias in Yemen to fuel the ongoing conflict.

Dependency Creation- Constant aid stifle local industry and making a nation “addicted” to foreign help.

Paternalistic Philanthropy- Eg- Concerns over the Gates Foundation’s outsized influence on global malaria and polio policies.

Lack of Transparency and accountability (“Black Box”) – Weak monitoring and evaluation.

Neo-colonial influence – Donors shaping domestic policies.

Politicisation of aid – Selective generosity based on alliances. Eg- prioritization of Ukrainian refugee by EU

Short-termism – Focus on visibility over sustainability.

For global “equity” and “justice” aid must be guided by principles of transparency, localization, and long-term empowerment.

“Wars begin where ethics ends.”

In today’s world, conflicts persist not only because of political disputes but also due to powerful economic interests, especially the global arms industry.

Role of major weapon industries in continuation of wars

Profit motive – Eg- Surge in global arms sales after Ukraine war.

Wars act as “testing grounds”

Lobbying in foreign policy. Eg- Military-industrial complex in the US.

Arms exports to conflict zones – Eg- Saudi Arabia as larget defence importer

Proxy wars – Eg- supply of arms to terrorist organisations

Economic dependence – Jobs and revenue from defence industry.

Capitalising on security dilemma.

Ethical considerations for powerful nations to stop ongoing conflicts

Deontology over Utilitarianism by prioritizing duty to protect human life over GDP growth. Eg- Restrict arms to regimes violating human rights.

Ethical assessment of short and long term damage of war. Eg- over 1.4 million Russian deaths in Ukraine war

Responsibility to prevent harm – Eg- Arms embargoes in active war zones.

Non-complicity principle to avoid moral responsibility for atrocities. Eg- Stopping arms to Saudi Arabia during Yemen war.

Adherence to ethical standards of the Arms Trade treaty

Addressing Strategic Hypocrisy- Eg- advocating for a “Rules-Based Order” while signing multi-billion dollar arms deals.

Support for peace processes – Eg- UN-led peace talks.

Transparency and accountability – Eg- Parliamentary approval for arms sales.

Disarmament leadership. Eg- Nuclear disarmament treaties.

Ethical foreign policy – Values-based diplomacy over realpolitik.

Corporate responsibility – Eg- Arms export compliance laws.

Transitioning to “Peace Economies”. Eg- Investing in Green Technology as alternatives to defense manufacturing

Real peace requires a “Moral Disinvestment” from war. This can be achieved by taming “Will to Power” of the defense industry by “rationality” and “moral duty” of the state.

In his seminal work On War, Carl von Clausewitz suggests that war is not an end in itself but a rational instrument of statecraft used to achieve political goals when traditional diplomatic dialogue fails.

War is diplomacy by other means

Force used to extract political concessions. Eg-Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to block NATO expansion.

War alters facts on ground to strengthen bargaining position. Eg-Control of Crimea and Donbas.

Power signalling to deters rivals. Eg-China’s military exercises near Taiwan.

War reshapes diplomatic alignments. Eg-Pakistan-China ‘all weather friendship’ after 1962 and 1965 wars

Resource diplomacy -Control over energy and minerals via force.

Negotiation through attrition -Prolonged fighting forces compromise. Eg-US withdrawl from Afghanistan

Policy of ‘bait and bloodletting’. Eg- US support to Ukraine to weaken Russia

Peace enforcement. Eg-NATO intervention in Kosovo.

War is used as a tool for regime change. Eg- US intervention in Iraq

Counter-argument- War is not diplomacy but its failure

Humanitarian catastrophe violates utilitarian principle of ‘greatest happiness’. Eg- over 1.4 million Russian deaths in Ukraine war

Rise of Non-State Actors- Groups like ISIS-K dont pursue war for diplomatic aims but for ideological and religious aims.

War used to consolidate domestic political legitimacy rather than national interest. Eg-Wartime nationalism in Pakistan.

Due to ‘complex interdependence’ war as a diplomatic means is not a rational choice. Eg- US-China relations

War leads to breakdown of diplomatic negotiations channels for peaceful resolution. Eg- Security Council paralysis.

While diplomacy is based on reason war is based on passion.

The acute security dilemma and zero-sum mentality fosters diplomatic distrust and reduce possibility of diplomatic cooperation. Eg- India’s suspension of Indus water treaty.

As per Deontological ethics, means of war cant justify any ends. As pointed out by Bertrand Russell, “War does not determine who is right – only who is left.”

Attitude